Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 377, 302 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5, 6 – Allegation against the appellant that he lured innocent children to his dwelling, took his pick from them and let others go – He allegedly exploited a girl child and killed her – The punishment handed down to the appellant by the Courts below was of death penalty – Correctness:
Held: 1. There are no grounds for interference as far as conviction is concerned and the sentence of appellant is reduced to life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life. [Paras 13 and 22]
2. There is no dispute about the identity or the cause of death of X – PW4-doctor, conducted the post-mortem of X – In his deposition, he stated that the injuries on the body indicate sexual assault – All injuries were caused prior to the death – The causation of death was ascertained as strangulation by hand, after the commission of forceful rape – Body of X was discovered from the hut of appellant – It was proven beyond doubt that the appellant was last seen with X inside his hut on the date of incident, and this was immediately prior to the occurrence of the incident – Furthermore, the DNA obtained from Ext.9 (underwear of the appellant) matches with samples of both X and the appellant – Taking a cumulative view of all the above circumstances, the prosecution has proven its case against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 9-12]
3. Examining the death sentence handed down to the appellant, the Courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant – Moreover, the High Court, which was the Reference Court for confirmation of death sentence, though expounded on the requirement of law to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, failed to consider any of these circumstances – only dealt with the brutality of the incident – Coming to the mitigating circumstances relating to the appellant, the condition of the family of the appellant is “very pathetic” and they earned their livelihood by doing labor work – The appellant could not attend school due to the socio-economic condition of the family and started working at an early age – He does not suffer from any psychiatric disturbance – Taking into account the above mitigating circumstances and the threshold of “rarest of rare” category, this Court deems it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment of the death penalty. [Paras 14, 18, 20, 21, 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.